DOCSLIB.ORG

GREENWAYS for PITTSBURGH RESOURCE GUIDE August 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GREENWAYS for PITTSBURGH RESOURCE GUIDE August 2017 GREENWAYS FOR PITTSBURGH RESOURCE GUIDE August 2017 GREENWAYS FOR PITTSBURGH RESOURCE GUIDE August 2017 PROJECT MANAGEMENT LETTER FROM THE MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING The health and wellness of Pittsburgh’s hillsides are visual Josh Lippert, ASLA, APA indicators of the City’s health and wellness. When cared for, these Andrew Dash, AICP, Assistant Director spaces are lush forest ecosystems that support vitality in the surrounding neighborhoods. When they lack care or monitoring, these spaces can quickly become degraded through active ADVISORY COMMITTEE destruction, illegal dumping, and the ecological decay of invasive CITIPARKS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE - REAL ESTATE DIVISION species proliferation. The original 1980 Greenways for Pittsburgh DEPARTMENT OF INNOVATION AND PERFORMANCE program was ahead of its time in promoting management of the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS City’s neglected open spaces. LAW DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE MAYOR In Greenways for Pittsburgh 2.0, we build on over 30 years PENNSYLVANIA DCNR of conservation-minded and community-lead stewardship of PITTSBURGH WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY undevelopable open space. The Greenways Program is also an URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY important component of the City’s OpenSpacePGH plan and addresses OpenSpace Objective 2.3-A and Strategy U. The new Greenways program targets five key goals for greenways; CONSULTANT TEAM Equity, Ecology, Economy, Placemaking, and Connectivity; and evolve environment::architecture emphasizes grassroots capacity building. By providing strategic Codametrics Studio Bryan Hanes resources such as this Greenways Resource Guide and the Fourth Economy Consulting Community Engagement Toolkit, Pittsburgh enables locally based Landforce stewards to build robust Greenway Stewardship Groups that can Western Pennsylvania Conservancy improve our neighborhoods and build stronger relationships within our communities. In Memoriam of William “Bill” Waddell, for his 47 years of service at the City of Pittsburgh and all his contributions to the Greenways for Pittsburgh Program. Sincerely, This Resource Guide was created for existing and potential stewards and the general public, and can be used to learn about the Greenways for Pittsburgh Program. In addition to this Resource Guide, the Consultant Team also produced Mayor William Peduto an accompanying Policy Guide (created for City of Pittsburgh employees), Community Engagement Toolkit, and Online Resources. This project was funded by the City of Pittsburgh with matching funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR). The Resource and Policy Guides were produced with the input and ideas of many individuals and organizations. The project team would like to thank all of our agency and community partners who provided feedback and inspiration. For more information about the Greenways for Pittsburgh program, please visit: www.pittsburghpa.gov/DCP/Greenways www. Cover Photo: Seldom Seen Greenway CONTENTS WHAT IS THE GREENWAYS FOR PITTSBURGH PROGRAM? Greenways for Pittsburgh is a program of the City of Pittsburgh, managed by the Department of City Planning, that helps communities designate and steward the City’s greenways to become assets for their 1 neighborhood and the City. Pittsburgh’s Greenway Program pg. 06 2 Getting Involved with Your Greenway pg. 20 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE? This Resource Guide is a how-to manual for residents who are interested in becoming stewards of one of the City’s greenways. The Guide explains the Greenway Program and provides useful information for stewards of 3 existing greenways or those interested in Making a Great Greenway pg. 28 designating a new greenway. The guide is an abridged version of additional material that is available online. www. 4 Greenways in Action pg. 38 WHO CAN BE A STEWARD? Anybody can steward Pittsburgh’s greenways! Official community-based Greenway Stewardship Groups can coordinate volunteers and establish a greenway’s vision with the community. PITTSBURGH’S GREENWAY PROGRAM Pittsburgh’s landscape is woven with green hillsides and deep valleys that define our neighborhoods’ unique identities. These green ribbons connect our communities, are throughways for people and wildlife, and provide natural services. Greenways can serve another important purpose by bringing communities together. 1 What is a greenway? What are the greenway types? Who is involved? How do we implement our vision? How do we build capacity? How do we grow our group? What are our core activities? Related Online Resources: Community engagement toolkit Community capacity resources www. What is a Greenway? A greenway is defined as a permanently conserved, primarily passive open space that is stewarded primarily by the community and serves to benefit adjacent neighborhoods and the general public. Goals for Pittsburgh’s greenways Greenways promote social equity in Pittsburgh by improving access to green space and passive recreation as well as by helping communities EQUITY grow through activities, tasks, and common goals. Greenways bolster Pittsburgh’s ecology by protecting habitats, improving air quality, managing stormwater, sequestering carbon, reducing heat ECOLOGY islands, and improving human health. Greenways offer economic benefits to the community by improving ECONOMY property values and providing opportunities for workforce development. Greenways protect the beauty and integrity of Pittsburgh’s hillsides and provide quality green space. Greenways can also preserve PLACEMAKING cultural and historic assets of Pittsburgh’s past. Greenways can connect neighborhoods with passages for pedestrians and cyclists. Greenways can also stitch together parks and open spaces to CONNECTION create contiguous ecological corridors. 8 | GREENWAYS FOR PITTSBURGH 2.0 RESOURCE GUIDE The Hollows 2010 Spring Hill / Spring Garden 1981 Perry South 2010 Allegheny River 2011 Bigelow 2012 Oakcliffe 2011 Duquesne Heights 1984 (now part of Emerald View Park) Seldom Seen 1985 Knoxville Incline 2016 Nine Mile Run 2012 Moore 2006 Hazelwood 1983 Greenway Fairhaven 2006 Public Open Space Woodland The Greenways for Pittsburgh program The importance of greenways has also was established in 1980 to designate been expressed by Mayor Peduto. The steeply sloped, unbuildable land for Mayor’s executive order committing the the purpose of protecting hillsides City to climate change initiatives (June and preserving passive open space. 2017) recognizes protection of the This program has resulted in twelve natural environment as a key initiative to designated greenways totaling 605 acres, meeting the City’s climate objectives. accounting for 14% of Pittsburgh’s public This Resource Guide was created as open space. Almost 35 years later, the part of a Greenways 2.0 “refresh” of the desire for greenways was expressed during Greenways program and describes the the creation of Pittsburgh’s Open Space processes, policies, and stewardship Plan (2013). Public input from across the guidelines for greenways. The new City indicated that communities wanted program will encourage stewardship, more greenways to improve access to improve the quality, connectivity, and trails and natural areas, and to connect accessibility of greenways, and help the parks and other open spaces. City reach its ambitious sustainability goals. Chapter 1: Pittsburgh’s Greenways Program | 9 What are the Greenway Types? Conservation Greenway Temporary Passive Greenway Active Site Easement or Mobility Corridor There are three types of greenways: CONSERVATION PASSIVE ACTIVE SITE All greenways promote conservation, Most Pittsburgh greenways allow Some greenways include active sites with but some serve only that purpose. for passive uses. higher levels of recreational activity. Conservation greenways contain Passive greenways contain: Any activities which require permanent ecologically sensitive lands such as: • Trails infrastructure, special equipment, or specialized maintenance are limited to designated active • Steep slopes • Overlooks and scenic views sites. These activities must have a low impact • Landslide prone slopes • Natural or cultural heritage assets on the environment, and would either be • Undermined hilltops Passive greenways also allow uses that do permitted by the City or administered by a • Stormwater management and not require permanent infrastructure, special vendor with a lease from the City. floodplains equipment, or maintenance such as: Conservation greenways provide: • Hiking These activities may include: • Ecological preservation • Biking • Cross country skiing • Stormwater management • Horseback riding • Mountain biking 10 | GREENWAYS FOR PITTSBURGH 2.0 RESOURCE GUIDE ANATOMY OF A GREENWAY Temporary Active Commercial Active Permitted Use Site Use Site Historic Asset Mobility Corridor Stormwater Site Trail UTILITY EASEMENT Overlook Passive Conservation Other elements such as a utility easement or mobility corridor may exist within any of the greenway typologies where appropriate: MOBILITY CORRIDOR Mobility corridors are easements through greenways maintained by the City. Mobility corridors provide improved connectivity to pedestrians and cyclists throughout the City. They include City steps, multi-use trails, or rights-of-ways. UTILITY EASEMENT Utility easements are locations where existing utility infrastructure passes through a greenway. These easements fall under the utility company’s responsibility for routine maintenance. TEMPORARY GREENWAY Temporary greenway parcels are City-owned parcels that are located
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Journals | Penn State Libraries Open Publishing
    I I • I • I• .1.1' D . , I * ' PA « ~** • * ' > . Mechanized streetcars rose out ofa need toreplace horse- the wide variety ofdifferent electric railway systems, no single drawn streetcars. The horse itselfpresented the greatest problems: system had yet emerged as the industry standard. Early lines horses could only work a few hours each day; they were expen- tended tobe underpowered and prone to frequent equipment sive to house, feed and clean up after; ifdisease broke out within a failure. The motors on electric cars tended to make them heavier stable, the result could be a financial catastrophe for a horsecar than either horsecars or cable cars, requiring a company to operator; and, they pulled the car at only 4 to 6 miles per hour. 2 replace its existing rails withheavier ones. Due to these circum- The expenses incurred inoperating a horsecar line were stances, electric streetcars could not yet meet the demands of staggering. For example, Boston's Metropolitan Railroad required densely populated areas, and were best operated along short 3,600 horses to operate its fleet of700 cars. The average working routes serving relatively small populations. life of a car horse was onlyfour years, and new horses cost $125 to The development of two rivaltechnological systems such as $200. Itwas common practice toprovide one stable hand for cable and electric streetcars can be explained by historian every 14 to 20horses inaddition to a staff ofblacksmiths and Thomas Parke Hughes's model ofsystem development. Inthis veterinarians, and the typical car horse consumed up to 30 pounds model, Hughes describes four distinct phases ofsystem growth: ofgrain per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Tree Canopy Data
    Urban Tree Canopy Data % City of Pittsburgh Canopy Other Allegheny County % Canopy Neighborhoods Cover Municipalities Cover Allegheny Central 29.24 ALEPPO 70.13 Allegheny West 30.71 ASPINWALL 42.43 Allentown 40.64 AVALON 47.78 Arlington 50.06 BALDWIN 48.87 Arlington Heights 59.82 BALDWIN 49.26 Banksville 46.94 BELL ACRES 77.80 Bedford Dwellings 49.77 BELLEVUE 41.86 Beechview 50.29 BEN AVON 61.27 Beltzhoover 48.34 BEN AVON HEIGHTS 76.32 Bloomfield 18.12 BETHEL PARK 46.85 Bluff 11.94 BLAWNOX 32.90 Bon Air 52.10 BRACKENRIDGE 20.45 Brighton Heights 39.18 BRADDOCK 14.21 Brookline 38.69 BRADDOCK HILLS 52.20 California-Kirkbride 30.02 BRADFORD WOODS 81.71 Carrick 35.12 BRENTWOOD 42.22 Central Business District 7.94 BRIDGEVILLE 37.79 Central Lawrenceville 33.64 CARNEGIE 37.33 Central Northside 20.63 CASTLE SHANNON 38.53 Central Oakland 20.16 CHALFANT 40.84 Chartiers 41.86 CHESWICK 38.04 Chateau 4.56 CHURCHILL 52.85 Crafton Heights 50.40 CLAIRTON 31.96 Crawford Roberts-Hill 29.90 COLLIER 57.56 Duquesne Heights 57.26 CORAOPOLIS 41.40 East Allegheny 13.96 CRAFTON 49.45 East Carnegie 45.08 CRESCENT 68.29 East Hills 49.36 DORMONT 28.20 East Liberty 19.14 DRAVOSBURG 49.51 Elliott 53.57 DUQUESNE 23.64 Esplen 27.97 EAST DEER 64.55 Fairywood 42.78 EAST MCKEESPORT 41.40 Fineview 56.58 EAST PITTSBURGH 26.39 Friendship 25.37 EDGEWOOD 53.49 Garfield 42.66 EDGEWORTH 75.32 Glen Hazel 80.56 ELIZABETH 31.90 Greenfield 27.98 ELIZABETH TWP 63.36 Hays 81.53 EMSWORTH 48.32 Hazelwood 34.64 ETNA 35.16 Highland Park 49.23 FAWN 70.04 Homewood North 42.43 FINDLAY 50.16
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Community Assets and Priorities
    Review of Community Assets and Priorities Prepared for Duquesne University’s Center for Community-Engaged Teaching and Research Strategic Planning Process January 13, 2017 Prepared by Megan Good and Jamillia Kamara Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 7 Methods 8 Background 9 Current Community Priorities and Assets 12 Common Themes 12 Community Development 13 Culture and Civic Engagement 19 Education and Skill Development 20 Health and Wellness 23 Housing 27 Public Safety 31 Transportation 33 Community Snapshots 36 Hazelwood 36 Hill District 38 Hilltop 40 Uptown 41 Sources 43 2 Acknowledgements We would like to extend our gratitude to all the community residents, leaders, stakeholders, and Duquesne University staff and faculty who shared their time, energy, stories, and insights with us. We value how generous you were with your time, connections, and honesty as we sought to better understand the rich and complex neighborhood dynamics and histories. The information we learned directly from community stakeholders provided valuable context for the community plans we reviewed, and we could not have pulled together such a comprehensive review without everyone’s support. Thank you! 3 Executive Summary Figure 1. Focus Communities Commissioned by the Center for Community-Engaged Teaching and Research (CETR) at Duquesne University, this report serves as one input to CETR’s 2016-2017 strategic planning process. As a Spiritan institution, Duquesne University is committed to a practice of community engagement which prioritizes developing authentic relationships, walking with those who have been marginalized, and being open to new perspectives and approaches. As a result, it is important for community priorities to be centered in the strategic plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Pittsburgh Public Schools Assignment
    Pittsburgh Public Schools Assignment Jennifer Cai John Cusick Anuj Desai Zhenzhen Weng 21-393: OR II December 2014 Introduction Public schools are crucial players in the development of youth, providing equal access to educational opportunities and preparing them to be responsible citizens. 90% of school students in the United States attend public schools. There are approximately 3.1 million teachers and 49.8 million students in public schools as of fall 2014; giving an average student-to-teacher ratio of 16.1. Countless studies have shown that students learn more effectively in smaller classes. Barriers to education exist in the form of transportation. Attendance is one of the most important factors determining a child's academic achievement. Poor school performance and higher dropout rates are correlated with absenteeism. Getting to school is difficult when students do not have reliable transportation options. In addition, if a child is not eligible for school-provided transportation and has to walk to school, the route to school may be hazardous, especially for younger children. Pittsburgh Public Schools, the public school district of Pittsburgh, is the largest school district in Allegheny County and the second largest in the state of Pennsylvania. Currently 54 schools serve approximately 25,000 students in Kindergarten through Grade 12. The average student-teacher ratio for academic year 2011-2012 was 17.4. Elementary school students who live more than 1.5 miles from their schools are provided with bus transportation from the Transportation Department. Left: Map of Pittsburgh K-5 (orange) and K-8 (purple) public schools Right: Map of Pittsburgh neighborhoods In this report, we seek to assign students to schools that minimize the distance students are traveling to get to school to address some of these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable Housing Plan for Fineview & Perry Hilltop
    A FIVE-YEAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN FOR FINEVIEW & PERRY HILLTOP PERRY W H IE IL V L E T O N I P P F P O E T R L R L I www . our future hilltop . org Y H H Y I L R L R T E O P PE P R R Y F W I E I N V W E H PREPARED BY: IE IL V L E T Studio for Spatial Practice O N I P P F Valentina Vavasis Consulting P O E T R L R L I Ariam Ford Consulting www . our future hilltop . org Y H H Y I L R L R T E O P P PER R F W I E I N Y V W E H IE IL V L E T O N I P P F P O E T R L R L I www . our future hilltop . org Y H H Y I L R L R T E O P P F W I E I N V E FIVE-YEAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREPARED BY Special Thanks to: Studio for Spatial Practice Valentina Vavasis Consulting Fineview Citizens Council Housing Working Group Board Of Directors Members Ariam Ford Consulting Christine Whispell, President Fred Smith, Co-Chair Terra Ferderber, Vice President Sally Stadelman, Co-Chair FOR Jeremy Tischuk, Treasurer Robin Alexander, former Chair Fineview Citizens Council Greg Manley, Secretary Betty Davis Perry Hilltop Citizens Council Chris Caldwell Diondre Johnson Diondre Johnson Lance McFadden WITH SUPPORT FROM Robyn Pisor Doyle Mel McWilliams The Buhl Foundation Cheryl Gainey Eliska Tischuk ONE Northside Tiffany Simpson Christine Whispell Eliska Tischuk Lenita Wiley Perry Hilltop Citizens Council Fineview and Perry Hilltop Board Of Directors Citizens Council Staff Dwayne Barker, President Joanna Deming, Executive Director Reggie Good, Vice President Lukas Bagshaw, Community Gwen Marcus, Treasurer Outreach Coordinator Janet Gunter, Secretary Carla Arnold, AmeriCorps VISTA Engagement Specialist Pauline Criswell Betty Davis Gia Haley Lance McFadden Sally Stadelman Antjuan Washinghton Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • KNOXVILLE · Univtrsity CENTER for URBAN RES EAR CH UNIVERSITY of PITISBURGH 1209-0, Cathedral of Learning 249 NORTH CRAIG STREET Uni Versity of Pittsburgh '
    An Atlas of the Knoxville Neighborhood of Pittsburgh 1977 KNOXVILLE · UNIVtRSITY CENTER FOR URBAN RES EAR CH UNIVERSITY OF PITISBURGH 1209-0, Cathedral of Learning 249 NORTH CRAIG STREET Uni versity of Pittsburgh '. 'ITTSBURGH, PENN SY LVAN IA 15260 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260 Phone: (4121624-3465 PITTSBURGH NEIGHBORHOOD ATLAS GOV ERNI NG BOARD ROGER AHLBRANDT, JR. STAFF U n iv ... ltv 01 Pltt.bu."". School 01 Socl,1 Work Chalrp.rlon JAMES VALL.AS Wendell D. Jordan (East Liberty-Lemington-Lincoln) Sh~y.lde Margare t K. Charny (Squirrel Rill) Vlc.Ch.lr~rlOn SARS"R" KELL Y Julia Whitener (Mexican War Streets) Perry. Hilltop Millofred Russell (Homestead, Pa. ) S.o:.atary TEARY WOODCOCK Gerald S. Oswalt (Schenley Heights) Squlrr'l Hili T .......... Katherine Knorr (East Liberty) RICHARD ARMSTEAD John Zingaro (Shadyside) Hill OI.trlcl nan Baskin JOSEPH BORKOWSKI Law• •• ne.... lU. Vicky Leap DANIEL C HAPPELL Howard Williams Hili Dlltrlct Ronald Madzy MARY COYNE Wan End Tony Cary JIM CUNNI N G H AM Mary Shea Sh adVllde MARY LOU DANIEL West End SUPPORTIVE INSTITUTIONS J ESE eEL GAE Hili Dlttrlc:t WI L LIAM P. GALLAGH ER Pittsburgh Neighborhood Alliance G,"nUeld Center for Urban Research of the Univ. of Pgh. MARY HALL Squirrel Hili School of Social Work of the Univ. of Pgh. ROSE JEWELL Architect Workshop ShadYlleM City Council of the City of Pgh . G ABOR KISH Elliott Allegheny County Department of Elections ROBERT " B L UE" MARTIN ACTION-Housing, Inc. Hue'wood THOMAS M U R PHY Department of City Planning of the City of Pgh.
    [Show full text]
  • Inclines Railroad, with Tracks Laid on the Most Likely, You Have Seen an Ground, Rather Than an Inclined Plane
    SouthSouth SideSide FACTSFACTS The incline is one of the most South Side Castle Shannon #2 opened in recognizable images of Pittsburgh. 1892. It was really more of a cable Inclines railroad, with tracks laid on the Most likely, you have seen an ground, rather than an inclined plane. It brought people and freight incline, and maybe you’ve taken There were at least five inclined up the back side of Mt. Washington a ride on one. planes on the South Side besides to Bailey Avenue. Passengers would the Monongahela and Duquesne Did you know there were once then get off and take the Castle Inclines. They are listed here, in nineteen inclines in Pittsburgh? Shannon #1 incline down to the the order they opened. This newsletter is filled with facts South Side. It closed in 1914. 1. The Mt. Oliver Incline opened in about inclines from long ago and 5. The Knoxville Incline opened 1871, rising from 12th and Bradford in 1890. It was the longest incline about the two surviving inclines. Streets to Warrington Avenue on Mt. in Pittsburgh, with 2,644 feet of Oliver. It closed in 1951, after 80 track — that's almost one-half mile of years of use! track. Imagine: the track was a bit How Inclines Work 2. The Monongahela Freight longer than the combined height of Incline carried freight — horses, three US Steel buildings! The idea of the incline was based on The Knoxville Incline had anoth- the counter-balance principle used by wagons, and cargo — on a track parallel to the current Monongahela er unusual feature: it was one of only the ancient Egyptians and Greeks in two inclines in Pittsburgh to have a construction projects.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Pittsburgh Neighborhood Profiles Census 2010 Summary File 1 (Sf1) Data
    CITY OF PITTSBURGH NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILES CENSUS 2010 SUMMARY FILE 1 (SF1) DATA PROGRAM IN URBAN AND REGIONAL ANALYSIS UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR SOCIAL AND URBAN RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH JULY 2011 www.ucsur.pitt.edu About the University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) The University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) was established in 1972 to serve as a resource for researchers and educators interested in the basic and applied social and behavioral sciences. As a hub for interdisciplinary research and collaboration, UCSUR promotes a research agenda focused on the social, economic and health issues most relevant to our society. UCSUR maintains a permanent research infrastructure available to faculty and the community with the capacity to: (1) conduct all types of survey research, including complex web surveys; (2) carry out regional econometric modeling; (3) analyze qualitative data using state‐of‐the‐art computer methods, including web‐based studies; (4) obtain, format, and analyze spatial data; (5) acquire, manage, and analyze large secondary and administrative data sets including Census data; and (6) design and carry out descriptive, evaluation, and intervention studies. UCSUR plays a critical role in the development of new research projects through consultation with faculty investigators. The long‐term goals of UCSUR fall into three broad domains: (1) provide state‐of‐the‐art research and support services for investigators interested in interdisciplinary research in the behavioral, social, and clinical sciences; (2) develop nationally recognized research programs within the Center in a few selected areas; and (3) support the teaching mission of the University through graduate student, post‐ doctoral, and junior faculty mentoring, teaching courses on research methods in the social sciences, and providing research internships to undergraduate and graduate students.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Brief — Assessing Community Need Within the City of Pittsburgh
    DATA BRIEF: Assessing Community Need Within the City of Pittsburgh December 2015 In 2014, the Allegheny County Department of Human Services (DHS) published two reports about assessing need within suburban communities by using the Community Need Index, a DHS-developed tool designed to address the specific needs 1 1 Suburban Poverty: Assessing and circumstances of suburban residents. The reports — and Community Need Outside the Central City and Data Brief: the Community Need Index upon which they were based — Suburban Poverty: Assessing Community Need Outside the stimulated community discussion. Requests were made Central City — 2012 Update for similar data about City of Pittsburgh neighborhoods. This brief provides an overview of the methodology involved in developing the Pittsburgh Need Index as well as the results of applying the index to city neighborhoods. MODEL DESCRIPTION The Pittsburgh Need Index uses methodology similar to the Suburban Community Need Index, but is altered for urban tracts within the City of Pittsburgh. Insights were drawn from other research about community need — most notably a 2006 single-value index project by the 2 http://www.huduser.org/ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development2 — as well as research and analysis from portal/publications/ the University of Pittsburgh’s University Center for Social and Urban Research (UCSUR) and the comm_index.pdf Local Initiatives Support Corporation’s (LISC) inventory of “core indicators.” The index variables and modifications from the original Suburban Community Need Index are outlined below: Variables/Methodology City Census tracts were ranked across each of the variables listed in Table 1, then averaged into a total ranking and divided into 10 approximately even tiers of need.
    [Show full text]
  • Littleboroughs— Nestled in the First and Second Range of Hills South of Pittsburgh Beltzhoover and Allentown
    REMINISCENCES OF BELTZHOOVER AND ALLENTOWN Two Old-Time Western Pennsylvania Boroughs* C. A. Weslager is known, still less has been published, and the meager in- formation available is gradually disappearing about the two Littleboroughs— nestled in the first and second range of hills south of Pittsburgh Beltzhoover and Allentown. Allentown, the older of the two, was incorporated in 1869 and annexed to Pittsburgh in 1874. Beltzhoover, incorporated in 1875, became part of the city in 1898. Their former borough names are still used although they no longer have political significance. Ifyou hail a cab in downtown Pittsburgh and ask the driver to take you to Beltz- hoover or Allentown,he won't remind you that your destination should properly be referred to as the Eighteenth Ward. He will whisk you across the Smithfield Street Bridge, left on West Carson Street, and up cobbled Brownsville Avenue, one of the city's oldest and steepest streets, now called new Arlington Avenue. At the top of the hillyou will intersect Warrington Avenue, the main street of the two former boroughs. Here the driver probably will throw on his brakes and ask for your specific destination. If you say Millbridge Street (although there was never a mill or bridge to warrant the name), he willhave you there in a jiffy.But ifyou were to direct him to Maple Street, for example, the former name of Millbridge, he would look at you with a blank expression. No street exists today with that name. Maple Street never was an avenue lined with maples. Itderived Mr. Weslager received an Award of Merit from the American Association for State and Local History for his contributions to the history of the Delaware Valley region and the State of—Delaware.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher and Rapid Rehousing Programs in Allegheny County
    Research Report Moving to Opportunity or Disadvantage? An Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher and Rapid Rehousing Programs in Allegheny County March 2020 The Allegheny County Department of Human Services One Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us Basic Needs | An Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher and Rapid Rehousing Programs in Allegheny County | March 2020 page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Figures and Tables 5 Definitions 6 Acronyms 7 Introduction 7 Background 7 Methodology 11 Limitations 15 Analysis 15 Demographics of Rental Subsidy Participants 15 HCV Households by Level of Disadvantage (move-in date 2017) 16 RRH Households by Level of Disadvantage (move-in date 2017) 18 Insights from Both Programs 20 Subsidized Housing Distribution in City of Pittsburgh versus Suburban Census Tracts 22 County-Wide Distribution of Households Living in Areas of High or Extreme Disadvantage 24 Moving Patterns Among HCV Households over Time 26 Discussion and Next Steps 27 APPENDIX A: HCV and RRH Program Details 30 APPENDIX B: Community Disadvantage Indicators and Sources 32 APPENDIX C: Allegheny County Census Tracts by Level of Disadvantage 33 APPENDIX D: Allegheny County Census Tracts by Disadvantage with Municipal Borders and Labels 34 APPENDIX E: Allegheny County Census Tracts by Disadvantage with City of Pittsburgh Neighborhoods and Labels 35 www.alleghenycountyanalytics.us | The Allegheny County Department of Human Services Basic Needs | An Analysis of Housing Choice Voucher and Rapid Rehousing Programs in Allegheny County | March 2020 page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Decades of social science research show that place has a profound influence on child-to-adult outcomes and this finding has far-reaching implications for how affordable housing policy should be designed and implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania
    DRAFT CITY OF PITTSBURGH P ENNSYLVANIA JURISDICTION: City of Pittsburgh NEIGHBORHOOD MAYOR: Luke Ravenstahl STABILIZATION JURISDICTION WEB ADDRESS: PROGRAM http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/ SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT NSP CONTACT PERSON: Ms. Susan Scheuring ADDRESS: For Submission to HUD 200 Ross Street, 2nd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 December 1, 2008 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (412) 255-2667 FAX NUMBER: (412) 393-0151 EMAIL ADDRESS: [email protected] City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM (NSP) CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Table of Contents…………...…………...…………...…..……………….…………..1 B. SF 424 Form…………………………………………………………………………….2 C. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………...3 D. Areas of Greatest Need…………………………...……………………………….....4 E. Distribution and Uses of Funds……………………………………………………20 F. Definitions and Descriptions……………….………………………………………25 G. Low Income Targeting………………………………………………………………28 H. Acquisitions and Relocation……………………………………………………….29 I. Public Comment Period…………………………………………………………….30 J. Information By Activity………………………..…………………………………….32 K. Total Budget…………………………………………………………………………..41 L. Performance Measures……………………………………………………………...42 M. Certifications………………………….………………………………………………43 Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 FY 2008 City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania B. HUD SF 424 FORM: 1. HUD SF 424 Form – Attached is the Standard Form – 424, as required by HUD, in support of the City of Pittsburgh’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program Application. Neighborhood Stabilization Program
    [Show full text]